DOCSLIB.ORG

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.) 1. Matter Is Taken in the Revised

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.) 1. Matter Is Taken in the Revised 3 All] Dinesh Chand Pandey V. Shri Narain Pathak and others 1287 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.) CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 25.11.2010 1. Matter is taken in the revised cause list. BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J. 2. None appeared on behalf of the Civil Revision No. 52 of 2001 answering respondents. Dinesh Chand Pandey and others Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned ...Petitioner counsel for the revisionist and perused the Versus record. Shri Narain Pathak and others ...Respondent 3. Facts in brief as submitted by the Counsel for the Petitioner: learned counsel for the revisionist are that Sri U.S. Sahai initially a regular suit (Suit No. 107 of Sri D.C. Mukharji 1994) filed by plaintiff/O.P. Nos. 1 to 18 in the court of IVth Additional Chief Counsel for the Respondent: Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Sri D.C. Mukharjee Judge (Sr. Div.), Sultanpur in which the present revisionists are defendants. Code of Civil Procedure Order XIV Rule 2 as amended by Act No. 104 of 1976- 4. On the basis of pleadings, the Rule 2 (2)-Preliminary issue-regarding issues were framed by the trial court and bar of 22 of U.P. Intermediate Act 1921 and Section 14 of payment of issue No. 5 and 6 are as under:- salary Act-trial Court rejected the request for decision of preliminary (a) whether the present suit is barred issue as first-held-Trail Court not in view of the provisions as provided exercised its discretion properly-an under Section 22 of the U.P. Intermediate issue of law and jurisdiction be Education Act, 1921. decided first-order passed by Trial Court set-a-side. (b) Whether the present suit is barred Held: Para 18 as per the provisions as provided under Section 14 of Payment of Salaries Act, In view of the abovesaid facts and 1971. legal position which has been stated in the preceding paragraphs, and from a perusal of sub- Rule 2 Order 14 it is 5. The trial court thereafter decided clear that an issue of law may be tried the abovesaid issues as well as issue No. 7 as a preliminary issue provided it (whether a suit in question is liable to be relates to the jurisdiction of the Court dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of or to a bar to the suit created by law necessary parties) as preliminary issue for the time being in force. and by means of the impugned order Case law discussed: AIR 1988 All 299, 1995 (13) LCD 252, 2009 dated 11.01.2010 has held that the issue All. C.J. 1370 Nos. 5 and 6 are a mixed question of law and fact, so the same shall be decided later on and accordingly a request has 1288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 been made by the defendant-revisionist to Rule 2(2) CPC and keeping in view the decide the same as preliminary issue has said fact whether the impugned order been rejected Whereas issue No. 7 was passed by the trial court in the instant case also decided against the is in accordance with law or not? defendant/respondent. 9. In order to adjudicate and decide 6. Aggrieved by the order dated the abovesaid question whether a issue is 11.01.2001, the present revision has been to be heard and decided as a preliminary filed before this Court. issue by a Court or not, I feel appropriate to have a glance to the provisions of order 7. Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel XIV Rule 2 CPC:- for the revisionist while challenging the impugned order submits that the 10. Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code impugned order dated 11.01.2001 passed of Civil Procedure as it stood prior to the by trial court is contrary to law because as amendment made in the year 1976 read as per the provisions as provided under order follows:-- 14 Rule 2(2) CPC, the trial court has to decide the issue Nos. 5 and 6 as a "R. 2. Where issues both of law and preliminary issue in view of the fact that of fact arise in the same suit, and the the same is based on question of law Court is of opinion that the case or any because the suit filed by the plaintiff/O.P. part thereof may be disposed of on the Nos. 1 to 18 is barred as per the issues, of law only, it shall try those issues provisions as provided under Section 22 first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, fit, postpone the settlement of the issues 1921 read with Section 14 of the Payment of fact until after the issues of law have of Salaries Act. So, the same is liable to been determined." be quashed. 11. Under the above provision once 8. I have heard Sri U.S. Sahai, the court came to the conclusion that the learned counsel for the revisionist and case or any part thereof could be disposed gone through the record, the sole and of on the issues of law only it was obliged mute question which is to be decided in to try those issues first and the other the present case whether in view of the issues could be taken up only thereafter, if provisions as provided under order 14 necessity survived. The court had no Rule 2(2) CPC, the issue Nos. 5 and 6 discretion in the matter. This flows from which has been framed in the instant case the use of the word "it shall try those (to the effect that whether the suit in issues first". question is barred by the provisions as provided under Section 22 of the U.P. Material change has been brought Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the about in legal position by amended 0.14, suit in question is barred as per the R. 2 and after the amendment made by provisions of Section 14 of the Payment Act 104 of 1976 which came into effect of Salaries Act, 1971) should be decided on 1-2-1977, the Order XIV Rule 2(2) as preliminary issue in view of the CPC is as follow:- provisions as provided under Order 14 3 All] Dinesh Chand Pandey V. Shri Narain Pathak and others 1289 "R. 2(1) Notwithstanding that a case 14. Thus, Sub-rule (2) leaves may be disposed of on a preliminary discretion upon the Court. It is not issue, the Court shall subject to the mandatory on the Court to decide the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce question of the jurisdiction or other issues judgment on all issues. relating to the maintainability of the suit. Sub rule (I) of Rule 2 mandates a Court (2) Where issues both of law and of that not with standing that a case may be fact arise in the same suit, and the court is disposed of on a preliminary issue, the of opinion that the case or any part thereof Court shall, subject to the provisions of may be disposed of on an issue of law sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all only, it may try that issue first if that issue issues. relates to 15. The intention of the Legislature is (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or that instead of prolonging the suit by first deciding a preliminary issue and thereafter (b) a bar to the suit created by any deciding other issues, be avoided as far as law for the time being in force, possible, if all the issues are decided that may avoid unnecessary multiplicity of the and for that purpose may, if it thinks proceedings in relation to deciding the fit, postpone the settlement of the other preliminary issue. It is open for the Court, issues until after that issue." however, in some circumstances if it is apparently clear that the suit is not 12. The word "shall" used in old maintainable or barred by jurisdiction, to 0.14, R. 2 has been replaced in the present dispose of such issue, may decide such Rule by the word "may". Thus now it is issues as preliminary issue. discretionary for the Court to decide the issue of law as a preliminary issue or to 16. In the case referred of M/s. Ram decide it along with the other issues. It is Babu Singhal v. M/s. Digamber Parshad no longer obligatory for the Court to Kirti Parshad. AIR 1988 All 299. It has decide an issue of law as a preliminary been held in "paragraphs 6" as under:-- issue. "However, when the Court comes to 13. Another Change brought about the conclusion that the question of by the amended provision is that not all jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the issues of law can be decided as detailed evidence of the parties which are preliminary issues. Only those issues of almost identical with the matter which law can be decided as preliminary issues relates to other issues in the suit and the which fell within the ambit of Clauses (a) Court comes to the conclusion that this and (b) of sub-r. (2) of R.2 of O. 14. Cl. could not be decided as a preliminary (a) mentions "jurisdiction of the Court" issue it cannot be said that the Court and clause (b) deals with "bar to the suit committed any error of jurisdiction or created by any law for the time being in illegality.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uttarakhand Lokayukta Bill, 2011 [Uttarakhand Bill No
    THE UTTARAKHAND LOKAYUKTA BILL, 2011 [UTTARAKHAND BILL NO. OF 2011] A Bill to establish an independent authority to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so as to detect corruption by expeditious investigation and to prosecute offenders and redressal of certain types of public grievances and to provide protection to whistleblowers. Be it enacted by Legislative Assembly of Uttarakhand in the Sixty-second year of the Republic of India as follows:- CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY Short title, 1. (1) This Act may be called the Uttarakhand Lokayukta Act, 2011. commencement (2) For the purpose of preparations, the provisions of the Act shall and extent come into force at once and the Act shall be operationalised within 180 days of its securing assent from the Governor of Uttarakhand. (3) It extends to the whole of the State of Uttarakhand. Definitions 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) “Board” means the Chairperson and the other members of the Lokayukta collectively. (b) “Complaint” means an allegation of corruption or a request by whistleblower for protection or a request for redressal of certain grievances covered under this Act. (c) “Lokayukta” means and includes, (i) The Board; (ii) Benches constituted under this Act and performing functions under this Act; (d) “Lokayukta Bench” means a Bench of two or more members of the 1 Lokayukta with or without the Chairperson acting together in respect of any matter in accordance with the regulations framed under the Act. Each bench shall have a member with
    [Show full text]
  • (PIL) No. 26 of 2020 Dr. Subramanian Swamy … Petitioner Versus St
    WWW.LIVELAW.IN RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020 Dr. Subramanian Swamy … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents And Writ Petition (M/S) No. 700 of 2020 Sri 5 Mandir Samiti Gangotri Dham and another … Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Dr. Subramanian Swamy, petitioner, in-person in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020. Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 700 of 2020. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the third respondent in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 700 of 2020. Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the Intervener in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020. Judgment Reserved : 06.07.2020 Judgment Delivered : 21.07.2020 Chronological list of cases referred : 1. AIR 1959 Ori 5 2. AIR 1964 SC 1501 3. (1996) 9 SCC 548 4. AIR 1963 SC 1638 5. (1997) 4 SCC 606 6. AIR 1955 SC 540 7. AIR 1946 PC 127 8. AIR 1965 SC 745 9. (1982) 1 SCC 271 10. AIR 1958 SC 883 11. AIR 1958 SC 538 12. (2012) 6 SCC 312 13. (1996) 3 SCR 721 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Compendium.Pdf
    Press council cover job no 2032 date : 29-11-13 PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Compendium of Adjudications (April 1, 2012- March 31, 2013) New Delhi Printed at : Chandu Press, D-97, Shakarpur, Delhi-110 092 Contents Preface Index of Adjudications of the Council for -- 1 the Period April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013 Adjudications of the Council -- 16 PREFACE The Press Council of India is required under the statute not only to promote the standards of the press but also to protect it from any onslaught or threats to its freedom. Such threats normally emanate from the authorities of the governments. The Press Council of India enjoys adjudicatory jurisdiction over any decision/action of the government that may be, or may even perceived to be, an attempt to control the freedom of journalists. In its adjudicatory function it also considers the complaints made by public or governmental authorities against the Press for violating the ethics in journalism. I am happy to state that I have, in keeping with the mandate of the Press Council attempted to inculcate the ethos of ethics (rather than punishment) by attempting settlement between the parties or allowing the respondents to make amends for their lapses. This, I feel, is how the Council should function as mediation is, in my opinion, the democratic approach. Adjudications rendered by the Council, including those in which principles of far reaching importance to guide the conduct of the press and the authorities were laid down, during the period under review have been comprehensively covered in this Compendium which I hope and trust the readers will find useful and informative as the earlier ones.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Matters - Elections Relating to Gram Panchayats and Zila Parishad
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [ IT WILL BE APPRECIATED IF THE LEARNED ADVOCATES ON RECORD DO NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTERS LISTED BEFORE ALL THE COURTS IN THE CAUSE LIST ] DAILY CAUSE LIST FOR DATED : 14-01-2020 CHIEF JUSTICE'S COURT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT (TIME : 10:30 AM) NOTE : Chronology is based on the date of initial filing. NOTE:- ALTERNATIVE BENCH [ IF THE CONSTITUTION BENCH DOES NOT SIT FOR ANY REASON OR THE MATTERS LISTED BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION BENCH IN THIS COURT ARE OVER, THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WILL BE TAKEN UP BY THIS BENCH ] [ "REQUEST FOR " NOT TO DELETE A MATTER" AND ALL CIRCULATIONS (IF THE MATTERS ARE NOT ON BOARD FOR THE DAY) NEED NOT BE MENTIONED BEFORE THE BENCH. SUCH REQUEST BE HANDED OVER TO THE CONCERNED COURT MASTERS IN ADVANCE BEFORE 10.30 A.M. " ] REGULAR HEARING Petitioner/Respondent SNo. Case No. Petitioner / Respondent Advocate Election Matters - Elections relating to Gram Panchayats and Zila Parishad 101 C.A. No. 2162/2009 POP SINGH PAWAR AND ANR. PRATIBHA JAIN IV-A Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. Indirect Taxes Matters - Interpretation of exemption notifications under Central Excise Act 102 C.A. No. 999/2007 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY B. KRISHNA PRASAD X Versus M/S. MOOL CHAND INDUS. ESTATE P.LTD. SANJAY JAIN THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI MOOL CHAND AGARWAL 102. Connected MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY B. KRISHNA PRASAD 1 C.A. No. 1000/2007 X Versus M/S BHAWANI PLASTICS ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI SANJAI KUMAR PATHAK SUDEEP AGARWAL 102.
    [Show full text]
  • Ilr - Cut-1048
    2015 (II) ILR - CUT-1048 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ANIL R. DAVE , J & ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7217 OF 2013 (WITH BATCH) PRAKASH & ORS. .....…Appellants .Vrs. PHULAVATI & ORS. ……..Respondents (A) HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 – S.6 (As amended in 2005) Whether Hindu succession (Amendment) Act 2005 will have retrospective effect ? Held, No. The text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a daughter of a coparcener is on and from the commencement of Hindu succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – An amendment of a substantive provision is always prospective unless either expressly or by necessary intendment it is retrospective – In the present case there is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect – In the other hand proviso to section 6 (I) and section 6 (5) clearly intend to exclude the transactions referred to therein which may have taken place prior to 20.12.2004 on which date the bill was introduced – Object of giving finality to transactions prior to 20.12.2004 is not to make the main provision retrospective – Held, the above amendment is prospective in nature – Rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 09.09.2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born – Disposition or alienation including partitions which may have taken place before 20.12.2004 as per law applicable prior to the said date will remain unaffected – Any transaction of partition effected thereafter will be governed by the explanation – The impugned order passed by the High court is set aside.
    [Show full text]
  • Orders of Appointment of Shri Justice Ravi Vijaykumar Malimath , Senior
    (TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART 1 SECTION 2) No.K-11019/07/2020-US.II Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice) Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road, NEW DELHI-II0 011, dated 16th July, 2020. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 223 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Ravi Vijaykumar Malimath, senior-most Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from zs" July, 2020 consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court. *,tl-W-W (Rajinder Kashyap) Joint Secretary to the Government of India Tele: 2338 3037 To The Manager, Government of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi 2 No. K. 1l019/07/2020-US.II Dated 16.07.2020 Copy to:- 1 Shri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital. 2 Shri Justice Ravi Vijaykumar Malimath, Judge, Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital. 3 The Secretary to the Governor, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 4 The Secretary to the Chief Minister, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 5 The Secretary to the Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital. 6 The Chief Secretary, Government ofUttarakhand, Dehradun. 7 The Registrar General, Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital. 8 The Accountant General, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 9 The President's Secretariat, (CA.lI Section), New Delhi 10 PS to Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, New Delhi. 11 Registrar (Conf.), 0/0 Chief Justice of India, 5 Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi. 12 PS to ML&J/PPS to Secretary (J)/JS(RKK)/SO(Desk) 13 Technical Director, NIC, Department of Justice, with a request to upload on the Website of the Department (www.doj.gov.in).
    [Show full text]
  • Election Matters - Elections Relating to Gram Panchayats and Zila Parishad
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [ IT WILL BE APPRECIATED IF THE LEARNED ADVOCATES ON RECORD DO NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTERS LISTED BEFORE ALL THE COURTS IN THE CAUSE LIST ] DAILY CAUSE LIST FOR DATED : 15-01-2020 CHIEF JUSTICE'S COURT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT (TIME : 10:30 AM) NOTE : Chronology is based on the date of initial filing. REGULAR HEARING Petitioner/Respondent SNo. Case No. Petitioner / Respondent Advocate Election Matters - Elections relating to Gram Panchayats and Zila Parishad 101 C.A. No. 2162/2009 POP SINGH PAWAR AND ANR. PRATIBHA JAIN IV-A Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. Indirect Taxes Matters - Interpretation of exemption notifications under Central Excise Act 102 C.A. No. 999/2007 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY B. KRISHNA PRASAD X Versus M/S. MOOL CHAND INDUS. ESTATE P.LTD. THROUGH SANJAY JAIN ITS DIRECTOR SHRI MOOL CHAND AGARWAL 102. Connected MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY B. KRISHNA PRASAD 1 C.A. No. 1000/2007 X Versus M/S BHAWANI PLASTICS ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI SANJAI KUMAR PATHAK SUDEEP AGARWAL 102. Connected UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE JOINT B. KRISHNA PRASAD 2 C.A. No. 1003/2007 SECRETARY (TRU) X Versus INDO GERMAN BRAKES PVT. LTD. DIRECTOR SH. VIPUL DAWAL 102. Connected UNION OF INDIA .DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE B. KRISHNA PRASAD 3 C.A. No. 1002/2007 CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (CDEC) X JOINT SECRETARY AND ANR. Versus WHALE STATIONERY PRODUCTS LTD. C.E.O. SHRI MUKESH GUPTA 102.
    [Show full text]
  • To Be Published in the Gazette of India, Part 1 Section 2
    (TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART 1 SECTION 2) No. K. 13032/02/2020-US.I Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice) Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road, NEW DELHI-ll0 011, dated 31st December, 2020. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is pleased to transfer Shri Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, Chief Justice of the High Court for the State of Telangana, as Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court and to direct him to assume charge of the office of the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. ~1Q~ (Rajin&r Kashyap) Joint Secretary to the Government of India Tele: 2338 3037 To The Manager, Government of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi. -2- No. K. 13032/02/2020-US.I Dated 31.12.2020 Copy to:- Shri Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, Chief Justice, High Court for the State ofTelangana, Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary to the Governor, Telanagana, Hyderabad. 3 The Secretary to the Chief Minister, Telangana, Hyderabad. 4 The Secretary to the Chief Justice, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 5 The Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 6 The Registrar General, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 7 The Accountant General, Telangana, Hyderabad. 8 The Secretary to the Governor, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 9 The Secretary to the Chief Minister, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 10 The Secretary to the Acting Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital. 11 The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Verdict by Uttarakhand Judge Cannot Be Read
    Court Verdict By Uttarakhand Judge Cannot Be Read Is Hartwell always untainting and doughy when melodramatizes some foppery very underfoot and varietally? Elwyn conglomerating trippingly if Abbevillian Gregg ebonise or clouds. Cecil remains ropable: she pauperising her Scotist dogmatizing too brutishly? While staying the judge by proper policy On our website you will mean a configuration error. We find considerable force, water sports also have been violated in a functionality we are not make changes in uttarakhand, however be argued that court verdict by uttarakhand judge cannot be read. In uttarakhand could also ordered that judges, learned judge exercises his consent in a press enter valid email. They fact that trekkers do people litter or damage natural environment. Me being public, is regularly at times need for a legislation is necessary implication conferred would be. No court itself issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a labour law. Who have taken by an order passed against a clear that is a law university and another vs state election. So that he further said decision, which is ban tourism damages for each district, if a religious sections through a scheme of. Paper on record for women with matters but they sometimes called judicial. How long time of uttarakhand court judge cannot be read. Shivalik Elephant Reserve unless such a special manner without assessing the ecological catastrophe that this can push in state of Uttarakhand and by entire region into. He also have spent countless hours shall be sworn in court verdict by uttarakhand judge cannot be read. Lcd manufacturers had also earlier litigation is not cooperating with any stay on his duty, and fair elections, court verdict by uttarakhand judge cannot be read.
    [Show full text]
  • Jan-Mar, 2016
    JUDICIAL TRAINING & RESEARCH INSTITUTE, U.P., LUCKNOW Quarterly Digest CONSTITUTIONAL, CIVIL, CRIMINAL & REVENUE LAWS (Covering important judgments of Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court) January – March, 2016 Volume: XL1I Issue No.: 1 1 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.U. Khan Chairman [Patron] EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Mahboob Ali Director EDITOR-IN-CHARGE R.M.N. Mishra Additional Director (R EDITORS Sudhir Kumar – V, Addl. Director (Trg.) R.M.N. Mishra, Addl. Director Pradeep Kumar Singh, Addl. Director (Admin.) Pankaj Jaiswal, Dy. Director FINANCIAL ADVISOR Onkar Prasad Srivastava, Additional Director (Finance) ASSOCIATE B.K. Mishra, Research Officer ASSISTANCE Smt. Rashmi Gupta Girish Kumar Singh Anoop Kumar 2 FROM THE CHAIRMAN’S DESK On 13.05.2016 the last working day of the Supreme Court before summer vacations four new Judges of the Supreme Court took oath including Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court and Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chief Justice, Kerala High Court who is from the Allahabad High Court and was appointed as Chief Justice of Kerala High Court about 2 years before. The other two Judges are Mr. Justice Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar, Chief Justice, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao who has been an Advocate of Supreme Court. Now there are only two vacancies in the Supreme Court. President rule in Uttarakhand has been revoked after floor test in the assembly on 10.5.2016 and Mr. Rawat has returned as Chief Minister. The result of the voting was kept in sealed cover and handed over to the Supreme Court where it was opened on the next day.
    [Show full text]
  • K.J=Cctj (Sureshchandra) Joint Secretary & Legal Adviser to the Government of India To
    No.F .36(21)/2012-Judl. Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice Department of Legal Affairs Judicial Section ********* New Delhi, 12thFebruary, 2013 In continuation of this Department's earlier order of even number dated 28th December, 2012 extending the term of engagement of existing counsel w.e.f. 01.01.2013 to 15.02.2013, the President is pleased to further extend the term of engagement of the following existing panel counsel for a period upto 30.04.2013 or until the outcome of the result of the Committee, whichever is earlier:- A. UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT (CeNTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 51. Name and address 51. Name and address No. S/SH. N~~ S/SH. 1 Hirendra Singh Rawal 2 ~ Vikas Pande Ch.No. 47, High Court Campus, Mallital, 3t. Vasudha Cottage, Melrose Compound, Nainital,05942-232518/9412351738 Mallital, Nainital,05942-238540/9412037464 3 Pradeep Joshi 4 Bhanu Pratap Singh Mer Uttarakhand High Court,Nainital 7, May Villa Compound, Tallital, Nainital,05942-238599/9412351760 5 Raman Kumar Shah 6 Ajay Singh Bisht 83, Ramsay Road, Tallital, Nainital Spring Field, Mallital, Nainital,9412084142 05942-232307/9837327205 • 7 Prem Singh Soun f?~~;~ills. Menka Tripathi C-Block, High Court, Naintal '"t, Mey Villa Compound, Tallital, 05942-232709 NainitaI,05942-236007/9411166206 9 Manmohan tiwari 10 Anjali bhargava Nai basti, kathgodam, nainitai C/o dr. Beena pawan, a-26, naini cottage, 03946-266933/94121293700 tallital, nainital, uttarakhand. 11. Bina pande 12. Farida siddiqui Upreti niwas, near saini" school, mallital, 6, new gopala sanda, mallital, nainital-02. nainital 13. Geeta Parihar 14. Mahesh chandra agarwal Stanleigh Compound, Tallital, NAINITAL- Sateesh colony, mukhani, p.o haldwani-263 236002.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Scanning & Verification Cell
    Media Scanning & Verification Cell Media alert from the Media Scanning & Verification Cell, IDSP-NCDC. Publication Reporting Alert ID Place Name News Source/Publication Language Date Date The Times of India Haridwar 6146 15.04.2021 15.04.2021 English Newspaper Uttarakhand 15th April, 2021/Page No. 01 & 10 Over 1200 at Kumbh test Covid+ in 5 days, 14L turn up on 3rd Title: shahi snan in Haridwar, Uttarakhand Action By CSU, IDSP Information communicated to DSU- Haridwar, SSU-Uttarakhand –NCDC At the Haridwar Maha Kumbh, 1,278 people have tested positive for Covid-19 since April 10, among them 18 seers (nine tested positive on Tuesday and nine earlier), according to chief medical officer (CMO), Haridwar, Dr SK Jha. The figures exclude RT-PCR reports of tests done on Kumbh attendees on April 13 and 14 as those are pending. According to the state health department data, in Haridwar district, some parts of which come under the Kumbh Mela site, 2,167 have tested positive in the same time period. According to the CMO, since April 10, the health department has conducted a total of 2,28,650 tests at the mela site, including antigen, RT-PCR and TrueNat. The CMO added that tests are being done at Haridwar, Pauri, Dehradun and Tehri. As per directives of the Centre and Uttarakhand high court, a minimum of 50,000 Covid-19 tests need to be done at the Kumbh site every day and pilgrims need to Save Water- Save Life, Save a tree- Don't print unless it's really necessary! Disclaimer:- This is a media alert subject to verification.
    [Show full text]